Archive for March, 2005

A Day Without A Mexican

Published
by
Chalupa
on March 30, 2005
in Based on a short film, Comedy, Drama, Fantasy and Mocumentary
. 0 Comments

This is a movie I’ve wanted to see since I first saw a preview for it…..uh, a very long time ago. Being Hispanic, I’m interested in these kind of things, yet it doesn’t make me a sucker for them either. This is a movie that asks what would happen if everybody of Hispanic/Mexican/Latino descent just disappeared from California.

You may be thinking this movie is all ‘¡Viva La Raza!’. Well it’s not. This movie doesn’t try to widen the gap between the rich Hispanic and rich American cultures that exist in this country. You also may be thinking ‘Good riddance!’. If you are, I feel sorry for you. Luckily this movie isn’t about getting all the illegals out either. This movie just tries to show what it would be like if pretty much 1/3 of California’s population just vanished.

I’ve heard many jokes in my lifetime about how dirty, lazy, rotten, stealing/thieving, dumb, stupid, ignorant, blah blah blah Mexicans are. It’s really easy to say these kinds of things about any group of people no matter what their color, religion, race or creed is. I would bet money that you couldn’t find me an example of the things aforementioned from any group of people. However, I’m also willing to bet that you can find many examples of good, hard working, industrious, clean, cultured, loving, caring people from any group as well. This movie shows how people would be missing from key positions in the government, business and industry, entertainment, agriculture, education, etc. It also does it in a funny way. I’d definitely label this one a comedy. It’s also a bit of a documentary or mocumentary. A bit funny like Spinal Tap or Best of Show, yet not quite that far. This movie tries to get something serious across in a funny way. It also contains factual tidbits and statistics throughout the movie that only backup what the movie is trying to tell. I believe the exact same kind of movie could be made about any people group residing in our great nation. I give this movie two thumbs and a big toe up.

Big Red: The Road to 200,000

Published
by
Neville
on March 23, 2005
in Cars, Documentary and Independent
. 2 Comments

The documentary short subject film “Big Red: The Road to 200,000″ may be a low budget, private-mid-west college production but that doesn’t marginalize the film’s small greatness factor.

Thankfully, “Big Red” never tries to be something its not which is a huge problem for many student films. Even though it crosses through feelings and emotional chords that quietly tug, sting and tap at the soul, the film never takes itself too seriously and manages to evoke several moments of cheesy giggles and outbursts of laughter (i.e., the montage-esque scene of Big Red’s faults and quirks and through-the-years-wear-and-tear damages is just one of the many hilarious, yet poignant moments). The movie plays out like a disheveled journey–sometimes unsure of where it’s going but always intrigued by the road it seems to be taking–thanks in large part to the transparent improvisational debut performance of senior Taylor student Nathan Shorb. While pretty much filling up most of the screen time with his two bits and sarcastic/insightful remarks, Shorb feels like a smart Tom Green mixed with a Buster Keaton comic knack for tone in his melancholy narrative. Even though it’s hard to always tell when he’s being serious and when he’s being funny, he manages to marry the two enough throughout his lines that the audience can rarely tell the difference.

However, the real star here is Big Red himself, as his 200,000 mile trek climaxes with Explosions In The Sky’s hauntingly gorgeous track “First Breath After Coma” resulting in what might be the most emotionally affecting moment captured in a documentary film since the final scene in Marc Singer’s award-winning “Dark Days,” where homes are found for the underground homeless cast and crew. In both moments, a deep and satisfied smile comes to being that is not merely a smile due to joy, or to happiness, but one that comes after a long journey that may seem to be ridiculous and humanly metaphoric all at once. And that’s pretty much the genius behind the movie “Big Red”: it’s an ode to the open road and to mid-west America and to small town college life and to the journey that we all seem to be on ourselves. We may no longer have the naive shine and sparkle from our youth, like Big Red once had, but most of us know it’s still inside us somewhere…waiting to be found out, and lived out–even if only for a few seconds.

Although it may be far from perfect, “Big Red” is everything you could hope for and more, and is one of the more meaningful and insightful and simply lovely American documentary shorts I’ve ever had the pleasure to see.

Millions

Published
by
Neville
on March 23, 2005
in British, Comedy, Crime, Drama, Family and Religion
. 1 Comment

You can’t beat a free screening for a movie–no matter if it’s good or bad–but with “Millions,” I knew I wasn’t seeing something that could ever be called “bad.”

From director Danny Boyle (”28 Days Later” and “Trainspotting”) comes this visually spectacular and unconventional family film that’s bound to confuse and quirkify viewers for years and years to come. The story is told through the eyes and imagination of a young boy named Damien and Boyle definitely has this part of the movie down cold. Even when the story changes directions and changes again and keeps going in a different way, you may feel a bit lost but it’s not a bad kind of lost…just the kind you often feel when a kid is trying to tell you a story and you don’t really know if it will ever have an official ending.

Although the movie’s opening sequence is one of the most exhilarating pieces of filmmaking and one of the most enchantingly beautiful film beginning to come out since “Magnolia” and “Amelie,” “Millions” doesn’t always keep that magical spark alive even if it tries so very hard to do so. It’s quirky, kooky, and odd…but all in good ways. It has its dark moments and moments so gloriously magical, you swear you’re watching a deleted scene from “Amelie,” but it also has some very very original moments and this is what makes it a unique and special treat. Without giving you a plot rundown (as I feel the trailers have already given too much of the plot away—so if you haven’t seen a trailer for it yet, DON’T!), let me just say that “Millions” is the first movie since “The Passion,” that seems to give God such an explicitly assumed role in the playing out of the film. It’s not a truly great movie but there are moments in it that are truly great. Like the dreamy-eyed night sky filled with falling British pounds picture from the film’s poster that you’ll likely see once it starts hitting more theaters nationwide, the movie has a surreal quality to it that goes where few movies have gone before.

Punch-Drunk Love

Published
by
Chalupa
on March 12, 2005
in Comedy, Drama and Romance
. 1 Comment

Finally saw Punch-Drunk Love thanks to Shorb. This is one of those movies that I missed when it was in the theaters and have been meaning to watch for some time. It’s amazing. I’ve heard a lot of people just hated it and I can definitely see why, however, I must state that I heartily disagree with them.

We got Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Louis Guzmán and Mary Lynn Rajskub. These are some amazing people just in themselves. Then you throw in P.T. Anderson as the director. How can this not be good? Ok, so that was a dumb question cause everything can always turn into superficial dribble if you’re not careful. I know some people didn’t like this because Adam Sandler was involved and others didn’t like this because Adam Sandler was involved and it wasn’t Billy Madison or Water Boy or Happy Gilmore, etc. One thing I’ve learned about people (in general) and movie tastes is: people like to know what’s going on, people don’t like it when they’re confused about the plot or anything, people don’t like to be taken out of their comfort zones and they like it when things stay the same. I could explain more on this but don’t feel like it at the moment. Come and discourse with me about this later if you’d like.

There’s so many things I liked about this movie. I like Adam Sandler’s character. I like how when everything is going nuts and wrong it gives you an idea of how Barry is feeling and why he acts the way he does. Sort of like when he’s at work and the phone never quits ringing and it’s always one of his 7 sisters that won’t leave him alone. I like how realistically he flips out at the incessant meddling and annoyance of his siblings. Could you really handle the way they act towards him and treat him? I like how Barry finds himself. I like how Barry finally stands up for himself. I like how Barry seems to pseudo keep it together amidst all the chaos. I wish I could find loopholes where $2.50 worth of pudding bought me 1,000 frequent flyer miles. This guy was smart and nobody seemed to want to acknowledge that.

The lighting was good. I liked the camera angles and the way the scenes were shot. The coloring was also planned well. Definitely looked like an Anderson film. Writing was great along with dialog and characters. I highly recommend this film.

sex, lies, and videotape

Published
by
Lij
on March 7, 2005
in Drama and Independent
. 0 Comments

Wow, James Spader. You made a really good movie in 1989. Way to go.

If anybody’s looking for a good character piece, this is one to go for. It’s got some dialog that borders on graphic, but I really didn’t think they took anything too far. Everything that’s there is there for the story.

This is one of Steven Soderbergh’s first movies, so it’s also interesting to watch in terms of director. I’m even listening to the filmmakers’ commentary as I write this. Well, sort of listening.

Anyway, it’s maybe not for everyone, but it’s definitely a worthwhile film.

And it ends well. I love when movies end well.

Be Cool

Published
by
Chalupa
on March 6, 2005
in Based on a novel, Comedy, Crime, Music and Sequel
. 0 Comments

Hey I saw a movie!!! Ok, so I guess it’s not that exciting.

This is definitely a film with a start studded cast. You got John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Vince Vaughn, Cedric, André 3k, Steven Tyler, Danny DeVito and Seth Green among others. From the previews I was expecting this to be a funny movie, but it was nothing quite like what I saw. This was definitely a comedy. I really loved Travolta’s character in this. He was so suave, cool and sophisticated. He always had it together, always knew what was up, always one step ahead of the guys, and always had an answer for everything. Sorta reminded me a bit of Swordfish but he was cooler. It was also really cool to see Steven Tyler and Aerosmith(cause I’m a fan). There was also a dance scene between Uma and Travolta that for some reason reminded me a lot of Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately James Woods is kinda out of the picture right away, but this just leads the story from one turn to the next as wannabe thugs, mafia guys, police, Vince Vaughn pretending to be black and a few other ingredients get mixed together to form a refreshingly funny and interesting film.

The Story of the Weeping Camel

Published
by
nathanshorb
on March 5, 2005
in Documentary, Drama, Family, Foreign and Mongolia
. 1 Comment

Another documentary, hope that’s ok for everyone.

This was, of course, nominated for best documentary at this year’s Oscars. It lost. Which is fine. It deserved a nomination, but not much more.

I had forgotten until this movie started that back in October, while at a petting zoo with Erica and my niece and nephew and family, I decided camels were my new favorite animals. They’re very humorous creatures. When I remembered this, I got even more excited about this film.

This was another pretty slow one. Not much dialog and a lot of footage of camels.

But it’s good. It’s an interesting look at another culture, and it ends up being a pretty incredible story. And there’s lots of laughable moments too. One kid’s name is Dude, for instance. That’s funny in itself. And the youngest boy in the movie goes along with Dude across the desert to another persons yurt, and they have a TV. This kid wants a TV really bad after that and it’s really funny. I won’t ruin the funny dialog in case you want to see it. And the old Mongolian men are really cute. And the camels are awesome. Those humps! They’re huge!

So, let’s wrap this up. This is a very pretty movie, and very intriguing, but in the end, nothing too overly exciting. If you don’t mind somewhat slow movies, or if you like camels, or other cultures, it’s definitely worth it. Even if you hate slow movies and camels and other cultures, the last 15-or-so minutes will most likely blow you away.

What the Bleep Do We Know?

Published
by
Neville
on March 5, 2005
in Comedy, Documentary, Drama and Existential
. 3 Comments

Last year’s small-scale sleeper success entitled “What the Bleep Do We Know?” is part documentary, part drama, part comedy, part New Age hooey, part religious, part spiritual, and part 9th grade science educational video. In a sense, it’s an amalgam of quantum physics, spirituality, and bad acting, accompanied by documentary interviews from some pretty smart and some pretty nutso “scholars” out teaching in the world today.

After starting out promising–where it appears the movie is going to be more of a documentary rather than following any real, concrete narrative–it slowly slips into the bad kind of weirdness that no one eventually would want to attach their name to. Sure some parts are fascinating and do make us think and I love how the movie explores how quantum physics is so closely related and intertwined with the traditional Christian worldview, BUT at some point (and I’m not sure exactly where or when—maybe when Marlee Matlin was screaming at herself in the mirror and smearing toothpaste all over the mirror and just hitting at it in some fit of rage that makes the audience ask, “what the bleep is she doing?”) the movie gets bad—really bad.

Sadly, it could’ve worked so much better without the ridiculous excuse for a story the directors attempt to underly all the interviewees’ comments with. All the trippy special effects look like they’re from the 80s, and apart from some great camera shots of beautiful Portland, Oregon, everything else the camera catches is inevitably not very interesting. By the 80 minute mark (of a 108 minute film), I was so annoyed with how the film was being executed I wasn’t sure whether I should turn it off and break the DVD in half or go put on something like “Moulin Rouge” (b/c one scene sadly reminded me of a musical, which made me think of “Moulin Rouge,” which made me wish I was watching that movie instead of “Bleep”). The sections of the film on brain waves and memories are fascinating, but then the movie switches to a wedding scene and begins talking about how people addicted to sex process their thoughts, which sounds interesting but quickly turns into a campy, irritating and brainless mess. The movie never feels quite right, which is its point I think, but that doesn’t make it a good movie. Like any idea gone bad, “What the Bleep Do We Know?” is one very very few people will even be able to tolerate and sit all the way through. I’m still baffled as to how this small-budget movie made a whopping 10 million at the box office (the “walk-out factor” had to be way high for this one) with such loopy logic wrapped in such an unappealing package.

So when it hits DVD shelves in a week or two, do yourself a favor and avoid what could possibly be the most annoyingly disordered and blah-blah-blah movie of 2004. Unless of course you want to see what all the hype was about…but I’m warning you, it was hype because it was BAD, not because it was good.

To Be and To Have

Published
by
nathanshorb
on March 2, 2005
in Documentary, Foreign and French
. 2 Comments

(I wrote all this quite eloquently, and then lost it in cyberspace, and recreations of eloquence are never as eloquent as eloquence itself, so forgive me.)

To Be and To Have is the latest in my documentary viewings. I fell asleep the first time, but that’s nothing new. I really enjoyed it the second time.

It’s about a teacher who teaches a bunch of kids in different grades all in the same room. A modern day one room schoolhouse, if you will. And it takes place in France.

First things first, I’m and El Ed major who loves France, so I’m biased here.

But let’s get one thing straight. There’s nothing cuter than kids, except for French kids.

This one’s a bit slow. In fact, in the opening scenes there is a shot of two turtles crawling across the empty classroom floor. In the bonus features, the director tells this shot was meant to be a hint at the pace of the film. So there you have it, it’s slow. But when you know it’s slow and can watch it for the sake of watching, it is pretty beautiful and enjoyable.

There’s no plot (I know, Neville hates that phrase, but I’ll say it anyway) to make the documentary exciting. It’s just simply taking a look inside a classroom. And it’s pretty brilliant. The innocence and wonder and awe of children and the gloriousness of being a teacher are seen in every shot.

The teacher is great. He is soft-spoken and mild-mannered and patient and caring and compassionate and all of this shines through very clearly. He is beautiful.

There are plenty of memorable moments, especially if they include little JoJo. Discussing (and discovering) infinity, scrubbing hands clean, and trying desperately to hang up a poster that is larger than he is. And when the teacher says goodbye to the kids at the end of the year you want to give him a big hug. Some of the kids recite poetry in the bonus features and this is hilarious and beautiful; I recorded them to include their voices in some of my music.

So, anyway, I liked this one a lot, but I don’t expect you to.

But, Neville, you like kids and French, and now you appreciate teaching, so as long as you aren’t expecting a thrilling plot-driven documentary, I’m pretty sure you’ll love this too.